G.R. No. P-1974 June 29, 1982
PABLO L. BAROLA, complainant, vs. VICTORIANO L. ABOGATAL, Deputy Sheriff, CFI, Misamis Occidental, Ozamiz City Branch II, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pablo L. Barola obtained a final judgment for damages against Serapion Gomez. A writ of execution was issued and assigned to Deputy Sheriff Victoriano L. Abogatal on January 15, 1978. Barola alleged that Abogatal, accompanied by Barola and his witnesses, went to Iligan City to locate Gomez. Abogatal identified and listed Gomez’s leviable personal properties, including a refrigerator and electric fans, and even instructed Gomez not to remove them. However, Barola and his witnesses claimed that Abogatal subsequently met privately with Gomez, who handed him a “folded envelope” or paper bag. After this encounter, Abogatal angrily told Barola to return home, asserting that Gomez was poor and had no money, and he abandoned the levy and sale of the listed properties.
In his defense, Abogatal testified that he failed to transport the levied appliances because Barola lacked funds for freight, claiming the items were stored at a police station. He denied receiving anything from Gomez and blamed Barola for the delay in returning the writ, alleging Barola retained possession of it. The judgment debt remained unsatisfied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Victoriano L. Abogatal is administratively liable for dereliction of duty in failing to properly execute a final judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Abogatal guilty of dereliction of duty. The Court upheld the findings of the Court Administrator, which rejected Abogatal’s excuses. His claim that Barola’s lack of money for freight prevented the levy was unsubstantiated and contrary to a sheriff’s ministerial duty to execute writs diligently. The allegation that Barola kept the writ was deemed indicative of Abogatal’s own carelessness in handling official court processes.
Critically, Abogatal violated procedural rules by failing to make a timely return of the writ of execution. Under Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a sheriff must return a writ within 10 to 60 days of receipt. Abogatal received the writ on January 15, 1978, but only made his return on May 22, 1978, a delay for which he provided no valid justification. His inaction effectively denied the complainant the fruits of a final judgment. As a sheriff, Abogatal had a mandatory duty to enforce writs promptly and faithfully; his failure to do so constituted gross neglect. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary with a stern warning against repetition.